EF 50mm mk 1 vs. mk 2 at DVinfo.net

Dylan Couper · December 13th, 2004, 02:10 AM

Quick question about these two lenses....
The general consensus is that the Mk 1 is a better lens, being all metal and having focus marks on the barrel. On the other hand, some people say the newer Mk 2 has faster AF.

In my hood, a used Mk 1 sells for $50 more or so used than a new Mk 2. Are they really worth that much more?

Thanks!

Brian Kennedy · January 26th, 2005, 11:36 PM

You've pretty much summed up the differences -- metal mount and DOF scale. You're talking about the f/1.8 version of this lens, which is the low end of Canon's 50mm line. I prefer Canon's 50/1.4, but it's about twice or three times the cost of the f/1.8.

Is a metal mount and DOF scale worth $50? That's up to you. IMO, the mk I version is typically overpriced as a used lens because it enjoys something of a cult status, driving up demand.

Robert Mann Z. · January 27th, 2005, 12:07 AM

the 50 is such a tight lens on a digital camera that it often gets to sit on the bench...

on a full frame i say get the better 50...the 1.4, and don't even bother with the 1.8 [either one]...

on a multiplier camera i would get the plastic one, it light, yet durable, and for the amount of use it will get it a bargin..

the 50 is a great indoor lens on a full frame camera because even at 1.8 it sharp, but with the multiplier the rooms become that much smaller, the crops become that much tighter, i love to take my 50 on nature walks were it shines in natural light and it adds no weight to my camera, it is for me ideal,

so for me the mk2 wins out

Bernard Diaz · January 27th, 2005, 05:49 PM

Get the mark 1. It's more durable and it's sharp, unless you drop it like my niece dropped mine earlier on this monthon a marble floor:-(
I wonder if it had been a mark2 if it owould have survived the impact as it is much lighter than the mark 1.
Neither the 50 1.8 mark 1 or the mark 2 are USM models but they are both sharp lenses.
I'm moving up to a 85 1.8 which is currently on its way from its previous owner in CA. From what I've read, it's a decent portrait lens. I hear that the 50 1.4 is a bit soft wide open, but still a decent lens.
I made an offer on a 50 1.4 but it fell through.
Go mark 1!!!

Robert Mann Z. · January 27th, 2005, 05:54 PM

the 50 1.4 is NOT soft wide open, it also has better bokeh, actually, so much so its very noticeable..

as for dropping lenses i don't recommend dropping any lens, and no lens is guaranteed to survive a fall, at least with the mk2 your only out 70 bucks

Bernard Diaz · January 27th, 2005, 06:19 PM

Robert, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm not the only person in the world that thinks that the 50 1.4 is a bit soft wide open.
Nobody recommended dropping the lens nor suggested that there was guarantee for such occurrence.

Brian Kennedy · January 27th, 2005, 09:59 PM

The 50/1.4 is slightly soft at f/1.4, but the 50/1.8 is slightly soft at f/1.8. Most lenses are slightly soft wide open. The f/1.4 gives you an extra 2/3 stops, though, which is valuable if you shoot in low light.

For a brief comparison of the f/1.4 and f/1.8 versions of the Canon 50, look here:
http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/

December 13th, 2004, 02:10 AM	#1
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	EF 50mm mk 1 vs. mk 2 Quick question about these two lenses.... The general consensus is that the Mk 1 is a better lens, being all metal and having focus marks on the barrel. On the other hand, some people say the newer Mk 2 has faster AF. In my hood, a used Mk 1 sells for $50 more or so used than a new Mk 2. Are they really worth that much more? Thanks! __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

January 26th, 2005, 11:36 PM	#2
Brian Kennedy Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Washington DC Posts: 126	You've pretty much summed up the differences -- metal mount and DOF scale. You're talking about the f/1.8 version of this lens, which is the low end of Canon's 50mm line. I prefer Canon's 50/1.4, but it's about twice or three times the cost of the f/1.8. Is a metal mount and DOF scale worth $50? That's up to you. IMO, the mk I version is typically overpriced as a used lens because it enjoys something of a cult status, driving up demand. __________________ Brian Kennedy

January 27th, 2005, 09:59 PM	#7
Brian Kennedy Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Washington DC Posts: 126	The 50/1.4 is slightly soft at f/1.4, but the 50/1.8 is slightly soft at f/1.8. Most lenses are slightly soft wide open. The f/1.4 gives you an extra 2/3 stops, though, which is valuable if you shoot in low light. For a brief comparison of the f/1.4 and f/1.8 versions of the Canon 50, look here: http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/ __________________ Brian Kennedy

January 27th, 2005, 12:07 AM	#3
Robert Mann Z. Skyonic New York Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NYC Posts: 614	the 50 is such a tight lens on a digital camera that it often gets to sit on the bench... on a full frame i say get the better 50...the 1.4, and don't even bother with the 1.8 [either one]... on a multiplier camera i would get the plastic one, it light, yet durable, and for the amount of use it will get it a bargin.. the 50 is a great indoor lens on a full frame camera because even at 1.8 it sharp, but with the multiplier the rooms become that much smaller, the crops become that much tighter, i love to take my 50 on nature walks were it shines in natural light and it adds no weight to my camera, it is for me ideal, so for me the mk2 wins out

January 27th, 2005, 05:49 PM	#4
Bernard Diaz Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: New Jersey Posts: 151	Get the mark 1. It's more durable and it's sharp, unless you drop it like my niece dropped mine earlier on this monthon a marble floor:-( I wonder if it had been a mark2 if it owould have survived the impact as it is much lighter than the mark 1. Neither the 50 1.8 mark 1 or the mark 2 are USM models but they are both sharp lenses. I'm moving up to a 85 1.8 which is currently on its way from its previous owner in CA. From what I've read, it's a decent portrait lens. I hear that the 50 1.4 is a bit soft wide open, but still a decent lens. I made an offer on a 50 1.4 but it fell through. Go mark 1!!!

January 27th, 2005, 05:54 PM	#5
Robert Mann Z. Skyonic New York Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NYC Posts: 614	the 50 1.4 is NOT soft wide open, it also has better bokeh, actually, so much so its very noticeable.. as for dropping lenses i don't recommend dropping any lens, and no lens is guaranteed to survive a fall, at least with the mk2 your only out 70 bucks

January 27th, 2005, 06:19 PM	#6
Bernard Diaz Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: New Jersey Posts: 151	Robert, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm not the only person in the world that thinks that the 50 1.4 is a bit soft wide open. Nobody recommended dropping the lens nor suggested that there was guarantee for such occurrence.